It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Real Reason for Chemtrails: Being Used to Inoculate the Public??

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 



Oh and by the way my breath when it freezes in cold weather doesn't linger all day in the air it disappears right away... Kind of like a jet contrail ...


Apples/Oranges.

(Unless you have a turbine engine in your mouth, the temperature is, as Essan syas, VERY cold, and the humidity is sufficient, and you're moving THROUGH the air at about 5 to 7 miles per minute)

THEN your 'mouth' might leave a contrail.

Hint: The temperature spewing out of your mouth should be in the range of ~750-800 degrees C.




posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by GeminiSky
 


Well, what your saying is a possibility, same as others saying that there are no such things as chemtrails. All we can do at this point is agree to disagree and hope that your wrong.

My gut feeling is that chem trails are real however, I do not know why or who is spraying them. Another possibility could be that they are innoculating us against something 'they' have created or it could be something to do with weather control. We will just have to put our ears to the ground and see what comes about over time.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   


Regular jet contrails do not linger in the air all day like chem trails.


If you were going to spray chemicals all over an area why in the hell would you want to use a method that left the chemicals suspended in the air all day? Would not the idea be to cover a large area quickly to go unoticed?



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 

The only people who do not know that contrails can persist are the people who believe in "chemtrails". Everyone else knows clouds can last for hours; contrails and clouds are the same basic make-up, so they can last for hours, too. Military planes can and do leave persistent contrails. Atmospheric conditions at ground level in all parts of the world except the polar regions will not produce contrails. In polar regions, they do form at take-off because it's cold enough.
There is no "purpose", it's atmospheric conditions alone that determine when and how long contrails persist.
"Chemtrail" theory is an internet myth, spread by people who do not understand the science involved. There has been no study from a credible source that supports any claims made about "chemtrails". Believe me, I've tried to find it.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Or perhaps seasonal diseases, like flu and colds are spread more easily during times when people remain indoors, in closer contact with others. Yeah, that is much more likely.

Spreading pharmacueticals in aerosol at flight altitude is just a big waste of time and money. Aerosols can, will and do remain suspended for hours, even days. Some never reach the ground, because of such things as air currents and updrafts. The wind will spread them, diluting the aerosol in the atmosphere even more. They would need to make TONS of the chemicals used to have even the tiniest hope of innoculating even one person. So it's the most expensive, labor-intensive, high-maintenence scatter-shot way of delivering anything, anywhere, any time.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 
Perhaps you didn't notice them, but they do.
Planes cannot turn anything on and off. It happens because of differing areas of conditons in the atmosphere. The atmosphere moves like a fluid, in waves. Before mixing these waves can be felt if you are inside the plane, as turbulence. If one layer is saturated and the other is not, when a plane flies through that area, the saturated area will have contrails, and the drier area will not. I got this info from a pilot/ATC. It's a very simple explanation for a much more complex event.
Criss-crossing lines are because planes fly in more than one direction. A plane flying N-S leaving a contrail, followed by a plane flying E-W will leave a cross. More than one plane in each direction and a bit of wind drift leaves a "tic-tac-toe". Add in a plane flying SW-NE, and you have a triangle.....but not painting a target by triangulation, like is sometimes claimed. But that is another day....



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye

High levels of barium found among other toxins:
www.youtube.com...



LMAO. That "news" story is so full of errors it's funny people still try to use it. First, I contacted the reporter at KSLA and asked him directly. He knows the report is WRONG. He admits it. If he knows it is wrong, how can anyone say it is right? And apparently, I'm the only one who ever asked him about it, despite it's use all over the place. My first video is our exchange of emails, and I use the same name here as at YT.
The three biggest problems:
1) The sample taken was from water collection in someone's backyard in a jar open to the air for a while. Not even close to being reliable, especially when there is barium known to be in the soil of the region, and it was in an agricultural area. Throw in evaporation and ground level exhaust, and the fact that there could be NO WAY POSSIBLE to attribute anything in that jar directly to any aircraft, and you have a test that means squat or less.
2) At around the one minute mark, they show the "test" results. The reporter clearly says "6.8", but the the paper clearly shows "68.8". The number is off by a factor of 10! Why don't people jump all over that mistake? Because they researched a bit further and found...\
3) The unit of measure the reporter clearly says is "parts per million". The test shows "ug/L". The letter "u" is used instead of looking up the character "mu", a Greek letter. It means BILLION. One billion is 1000 times more than one million. The true reading of the test results is "68.8 parts per billion". That converts to .0688 ppm, or a lot less than the EPA guidelines for exposure to barium of 2ppm.
Why haven't people questioned it before? Two reasons come to mind:
1) They noticed it was wrong, but figured out their audience (chemtrailers) would not know or notice.
2) They didn't know themselves.
Both look bad for "chemtrailers." Either they are dishonest or they don't understand basic scientific notation, even though they make all kinds of chemical claims.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by hawkiye

Oh and by the way my breath when it freezes in cold weather doesn't linger all day in the air it disappears right away... Kind of like a jet contrail


Do you see your breathe every day of the year? Does it vary according to the weather?

And have you ever been out when it's -35c to see what happens then?


I live in the northwest so yeah I have been out in sub zereo weather never has my breath lingered like a chemtrail



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by stars15k
 





LMAO. That "news" story is so full of errors it's funny people still try to use it. First, I contacted the reporter at KSLA and asked him directly. He knows the report is WRONG. He admits it.


Ok buddy so were just supposed to take your word for it you called and got the reporter to confess he lied, yeah riiiight LOL!

There are literally hundreds of videos and sites those were just a sample of what's out there. Many people have sampled the air quality and what falls to the ground before and after chemtrails are sprayed.

And when the barium level is 20 times what is known to be in the region gee I think that is cause for concern

As I said the people trying to disprove them are trying way to hard. If there was nothing to them they would just be ignored.

[edit on 12-6-2010 by hawkiye]



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by zaiger


Regular jet contrails do not linger in the air all day like chem trails.


If you were going to spray chemicals all over an area why in the hell would you want to use a method that left the chemicals suspended in the air all day? Would not the idea be to cover a large area quickly to go unoticed?


So they spread out over much larger area then the jets can cover before the fall to the ground.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 01:51 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



Originally posted by hawkiye

Oh and by the way my breath when it freezes in cold weather doesn't linger all day in the air it disappears right away... Kind of like a jet contrail

First, try when its this cold outside:

Then add enough humidity, and a hot engine (the engine is much hotter then your breath).

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye

Oh and by the way my breath when it freezes in cold weather doesn't linger all day in the air it disappears right away... Kind of like a jet contrail


LOL @ comparing your mouth to a jet engine. I guess that proves it then. If your mouth can't mimic a contrail then they must be chemtrails. There's no way around it.

I think hawkiye's method of proof is far superior than the Scientific Method.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 03:52 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by TheComte
 


I might get into trouble for this one, but maybe he’s trying to tell us in a nice way that Chemtrailers are full of hot air…


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


You can contact him yourself. He still works at KSLA, and has an email account. Have at it.

Oh, and you didn't say anything about the errors. Can you explain those away? You seem to be attacking the messenger, but ignoring the message.
No credible test has ever been done to show anything like a "chemtrail" exists. Ground water or air samples are really meaningless. You need to sample the trail itself in situ to be able to attribute anything to being found besides exhaust. But this is ground we've all been over many times before.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 07:33 AM
link   
[I] réponse à [url = # www.abovetopsecret.com... pid9004821] poste par stars15k [/ url] [/ i]
[Plus]
Hi ! all !
A length of blogs and forums, I discovered the same people - under different pseudonyms - coming argue topics related to the chemtrails. Sometimes, they are qualified to talk to (hidden scientists?) (Drivers without name?) and longer of diatribes speaking water vapour collapsed when this is not to accept the sprays to high altitudes for 'braking false warming'! Hahaha!
Their explanations are worth another:
Why the contrails & chemtrails side by side? Temperature change? Why 1 kilometre and 100 kilometres chemtrails contrails? Temperature difference? Why not streaks on 20 kilometres or 30 or 50?
Why sometimes trap? Sudden heat?
Sometimes, they speak of applications on the cloud against the GW. Why does t - not televised on "peace applications" stories? Why this silence?
___________________

Bonjour à tous !
A longueur de blogs et de forums, je découvre les mêmes personnes qui - sous des pseudonymes différents - viennent argumenter les sujets ayant trait aux chemtrails. Parfois, ils se disent qualifiés pour en discourir (scientifiques cachés ? Pilotes sans nom ?) et s'allongent de diatribes à parler de vapeurs d'eau condensées quand ce n'est pas d'accepter les pulvérisations à hautes altitudes pour 'freiner le faux réchauffement climatique' ! Hahaha !
Leurs explications en valent une autre:
Pourquoi des contrails & des chemtrails côte à côte ? Changement de température ? Pourquoi des contrails d'1 kilomètre et des chemtrails de 100 kilomètres ? Différence de températures ? Pourquoi pas des traînées sur 20 kilomètres ou 30 ou 50 ?
Pourquoi parfois des interruptions ? Chaleur soudaine ?
Parfois, ils parlent d'épandages sur les nuages contre le GW. Pourquoi n'y a t-il pas des reportages télévisés sur les "épandages pacifistes" ? Pourquoi ce silence ?



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by huemaurice1
 


Huemaurice1.....

Ummmm.......sorry.....

You might need to try that again.....

I'm not quite with you on this.


Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


I don't think he knows much English and has used google translator (or similar) to translate his French post into English - with the inevitable 'hilarious' consequences.

Unfortunately I don't know much French to be able to determine the exact gist of what Huemaurice1 is asking. Anyone able to help?



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by huemaurice1


Bonjour à tous !
A longueur de blogs et de forums, je découvre les mêmes personnes qui - sous des pseudonymes différents - viennent argumenter les sujets ayant trait aux chemtrails. Parfois, ils se disent qualifiés pour en discourir (scientifiques cachés ? Pilotes sans nom ?) et s'allongent de diatribes à parler de vapeurs d'eau condensées quand ce n'est pas d'accepter les pulvérisations à hautes altitudes pour 'freiner le faux réchauffement climatique' ! Hahaha !
Leurs explications en valent une autre:
Pourquoi des contrails & des chemtrails côte à côte ? Changement de température ? Pourquoi des contrails d'1 kilomètre et des chemtrails de 100 kilomètres ? Différence de températures ? Pourquoi pas des traînées sur 20 kilomètres ou 30 ou 50 ?
Pourquoi parfois des interruptions ? Chaleur soudaine ?
Parfois, ils parlent d'épandages sur les nuages contre le GW. Pourquoi n'y a t-il pas des reportages télévisés sur les "épandages pacifistes" ? Pourquoi ce silence ?


Hey- This site is english speaking. You need to brush up on your english to contribute in a useful manner.

Hey Méc... Ce que tu as écrit là est simplement des arguments qui sont expliqué plusieurs fois dans ce thread là. Il faut que tu fais encore dés récherches. Il y a une grande masse des météologists là qui peuvent t'éxpliquer tous les questions que tu as posé. Tu n'as pas dit quelque chose nouveau; ce sont tous des arguments qui sont été réfuté plusieurs fois là.

Deny ignorance!

bonnce chance!

[edit on 12-6-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 08:11 AM
link   
I love to read the claim that "contrails do not persist for hours" when it has been demonstrated 10000000 times on this site that they do.

Next someone will claim that there were no persistant contrails back in the 50's and 60's. Please do not just repeat arguments that have been refuted a millions times on this site. It gets frustrating and it severly decreases the quality of the discussion since it tends to get on peoples nerves. Most people on ATS with expertise in atmospheric science have repeatedly countered most of these silly claims. Maybe.. Maybe not was friendly enough to provide reference threads that refute every single argument that has been brought up so far in here.

Chemtrails are implausible sui generis.

Smarter people than me have already pointed out that using the concept of "chemtrails" to affect people (and not the environment per se) is even more implausible since it is simply a very impractical or even impossible way to "contaminate" people.
It's an interesting take though. But the premise of your thought experiment is refuted (existence of chemtrails); so there's not much merit discussing your conjecturing from that premise on.

But it surely is an interesting marketing idea. I might steal it for a short story.... Thanks for contributing anyway and don't take the refutations personally.

[edit on 12-6-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join